\n 


THE  DATES  OF  CORNEILLE’S 
EARLY  PLAYS 


H.  CARRINGTON  LANCASTER 


xr(Of 


Vl  yl’  \0VS  U*- 


Reprinted  from  Modern  Language  Notes,  January,  1915 


BALTIMORE 

THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 


♦ 


<s 

i Iv'V'V 


REMOTE  STORA«rSi 


THE  DATES  OF  CORNEILLE’S  EARLY 
PLAYS 

In  dating  the  plays  that  Corneille  wrote  be- 
fore the  Cid  most  modern  scholars  have  ac- 
cepted conclusions  of  the  freres  Parfaict,1 
Marty-Laveaux,2  and  a few  other  writers,  with- 
out thoroughly  testing  them  with  recently  dis- 
covered facts  concerning  Corneille’s  contempo- 
raries and  the  stage  for  which  they  wrote.  The 
following  table  gives  the  dates  assigned  to  the 
first  representations  of  his  first  eight  plays  by 
the  freres  Parfaict,  Marty-Laveaux,  and  Lan- 
son,3 * *  as  well  as  the  date  of  each  play’s  privilege 
and  acheve  d’imprimer. 


-M 

O 

QJ  mCZ 

HI 

J 3 
ft1  rt 

i-H  To 

Er  Ph 

>-  s 
* s 

Melite  

1629 

1629 

Clitandre  

1632 

1632 

La  Veuve  

1633 

1633 

La  Galerie  du  Palais. . . 

1634 

1633, 1634 6 

La  Suivante 

1634 

1634 

La  Place  royale 

1635 

1634, 1635 8 

Med6e  

1635 

1635 

L’lllusion  comique 

1636 

1636 

To  estimate  the  correctness  of  these  dates, 
let  us  turn  first  to  the  evidence  given  by  Cor- 
neille himself.  His  statements  as  to  the  length 
of  time  he  has  been  writing  help  us  little,  for 

1 Histoire  du  tMdtre  frangais,  Paris,  1734-1748. 

2 CEuvres  de  P.  Corneille,  Paris,  1862-1868  ( Grands 
Ecrivains  collection). 

3 Corneille,  second  edition,  Paris,  1905,  pp.  11  and 
48. 

* Lanson’s  dates  are  substantially  the  same  as 

those  given  in  1885  by  U.  Meier,  ZSNS.,  VII,  127- 

135,  except  that  the  latter  makes  1631  the  date  of 

Clitandre  and  has  the  Suivante  precede  the  Place 

royale.  Faguet  has  returned  to  Marty-Laveaux’s 

dates  in  his  recent  volume,  En  lisant  Corneille, 
Paris,  1913,  p.  8. 

*1,  P-  xxiv,  he  gives  the  first  date;  II,  1,  9,  the 

second. 

3 1,  p.  xxiv,  he  gives  the  first  date  and  explains  his 
mistake  in  giving  the  second,  found  II,  215,  219. 


in  1660  he  calls  this  period  thirty  years,  in 
1668  forty,  in  1682  fifty.7  They  indicate 
merely  that  he  began  to  write  about  1628-1632. 
But  he  does  render  us  valuable  assistance  when 
he  states  that  Melite  was  his  first  play,8  that 
Clitandre  was  written  after  a visit  to  Paris 
which  followed  the  first  representations  of 
Melite ,9  that  by  March  13,  1634,  he  had  writ- 
ten six  plays,10  and  that  the  order  of  the  com- 
position of  his  plays  is  that  of  their  position 
in  the  first  edition  of  his  collected  plays.11 
From  these  facts  it  is  evident  that  Melite  and 
Clitandre  were  acted  before  March  8,  1632, 
date  of  the  latter’s  privilege,  that  the  Veuve , 
Galerie,  Suivante,  Place  royale  were  composed 
in  this  order  before  March  13,  1634,  and  that 


<D 


0 

oi 

bo 

01 

*to 

03 

c 

d 

V 

to 

j 

£ 

1629 

Jan. 

31,  1633 

Feb. 

12, 

1633 

1632 ( ?) 

March 

8,  1632 

March 

20, 

1632 

1632 ( ?) 

March 

9,  1634 

March 

13, 

1634 

1633 

Jan. 

21,  1637 

Feb. 

20, 

1637 

1633-4 

Jan. 

21,  1637 

Sept. 

9, 

1637 

1633 

Jan. 

21,  1637 

Feb. 

20, 

1637 

1635 

Feb. 

11,  1639 

March 

16, 

1639 

1636 

Feb. 

11,  1639 

March 

16, 

1639 

Medee  and  the  Illusion  comique  appeared  be- 
fore the  first  representation  of  the  Cid,  which 
took  place  in  December,  1636,  or  January, 
1637.  These  facts  seem  certain.  Let  us  now 
consider  the  plays  separately. 

1.  Melite.  Fontenelle’s  date,  1625,  is  en- 
tirely inconsistent  with  other  dates  in  Cor- 
neille’s career,  as  will  appear  from  the  follow- 
ing discussion.  The  freres  Parfaict 12  substi- 
tute for  it  1629  on  the  ground  that  Mairet  de- 

7 Discours  du  podme  dramatique,  Marty-Laveaux, 
I,  16. 

8 Examen  de  Melite,  Marty-Laveaux,  I,  137. 

“ Examen  de  Clitandre,  Marty-Laveaux,  I,  270. 

10  Au  Lecteur  de  la  Veuve,  Marty-Laveaux,  I,  378. 

11  Am  Lccteur,  CEuvres  de  Corneille,  Rouen  et  Paria, 
1644,  petit  in-12;  Marty-Laveaux,  I,  2. 

12 IV,  462. 


I 


clarcd 13  in  1636  that  Rotrou,  Scudery,  Cor- 
neille, Du  Ryer  began  to  write  in  this  order 
after  himself.  To  their  knowledge  that  Rotrou 
began  writing  in  1628,  Marty-Laveaux  14  adds 
the  information  that  Scudery  produced  his  first 
play  “ en  sortant  du  regiment  des  gardes,”  and 
that  he  was  in  the  army  as  late  as  March,  1629. 
He  then  states  that  Du  Ryer’s  first  play  was 
Argenis  et  Poliarque,  whose  privilege  was  ob- 
tained February  25,  1630,  and  concludes  that 
Melite  was  first  represented  between  these 
last  dates.  Eugene  Rigal15  supports  this  con- 
clusion by  citing  Corneille’s  assertion 18  that 
Melite  “ etablit  une  troupe  de  comediens  a 
Paris,”  and  by  arguing  that  this  troop,  after- 
wards that  of  the  Marais,  began  to  play  in  the 
fall  of  1629. 

But  Mairet’s  statement  cannot  be  accepted 
with  confidence.  The  passage  in  which  it  oc- 
curs is  one  in  which  he  is  trying  to  prove  him- 
self very  precocious  and  the  first  in  date  of 
the  new  generation  of  dramatists.  Fie  deliber- 
ately changes  his  own  birth-date  for  this  pur- 
pose and  may  have  pretended  that  Du  Ryer 
began  writing  after  Rotrou,  Corneille,  and 
Scudery  because  it  was  he  who  was  his  nearest 
rival  for  priority.  It  is  probable  that  Du  Ryer 
wrote  Argenis  et  Poliarque  no  later  than  the 
first  part  of  1629  and  it  is  still  more  probable 
that  he  had  already  written  two  other  plays.17 
Moreover,  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Scu- 
dery’s  first  production  appeared  before  1630.18 
Consequently  Mairet’s  evidence  does  not  prove 

18  Epitre  didicatoirc  to  liis  Galanteries  du.  due 
d’Ossonne. 

14 1,  129. 

1B  Esquisse  d'une  histoire  des  tht&trcs  de  Paris, 
Paris,  1887,  pp.  75,  76. 

18  Examen  de  M6lite,  Marty-Laveaux,  1,  138. 

17  .-1  r6t a phile  and  Clitoplion,  which  were  never  pub- 
lished. I have  shown  from  statements  in  their 
avertissement,  from  their  structure,  and  from  the 
facts  of  Du  Ityer’s  life  that  these  were  his  first  plays, 
brought  out  as  early  as  1628.  Cf.  Pierre  Du  Ryer 
Dramatist,  Washington,  1912,  pp.  33,  34;  Pierre  Du 
Ryer,  dcrivain  dramatique  in  Revue  d’histoire  lit  1 6- 
raire  de  la  France,  1913,  pp.  313,  314. 

18  Mote  the  altogether  unsatisfactory  reasons  for 
dating  it  1629  given  by  Battereau  in  his  Georycs  de 
Ecudiry  als  Dramatikcr,  Leipzig,  1902,  pp.  7,  8. 


that  Melite  was  written  in  1629,  but  merely 
that  Corneille  began  to  write  about  the  same 
time  as  these  other  dramatists,  in  the  period 
1628-1630. 

Rigal’s  opinion  is  influenced  by  his  ac- 
ceptance of  Marty-Laveaux’s  dating.  Mon- 
dory’s troop,  which,  according  to  Corneille,  was 
established  by  Melite,  was  accused  in  a law- 
suit, brought  against  it  on  February  25,  1631, 
of  having  at  that  time  given  135  performances 
outside  of  the  Hotel  de  Bourgogne.19  From 
this  accusation  Rigal  argues  that,  as  in 
Chappuzeau’s  time  (1674)  the  troops  gave 
three  performances  a week,  while  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  seventeenth  century  they  had  given 
only  one,  they  gave  probably  two  a week  to- 
wards 1631,  and  that  therefore  Mondory’s  troop 
must  have  begun  playing  by  the  fall  of  1629 
in  order  to  have  acted  135  times  by  February 
25,  1631. 

But  we  do  not  have  to  go  so  far  as  the  time 
of  Chappuzeau  to  find  a troop  giving  as  many 
as  three  performances  a week.  When  Moliere 
returned  to  Paris,  his  company  acted  regularly 
either  three  or  four  times  a week,  probably  con- 
tinuing a custom  already  established  at  the. 
capital.  Occasional  omissions  of  regular  per- 
formances were  offset  by  extra  representations 
at  the  houses  of  the  nobility,  so  that  this  troop 
gave  135  performances  in  less  than  ten  months, 
between  April  28,  1659,  and  February  10,  1660. 
Three  performances  a week,  therefore,  are  not 
too  high  an  average  for  Mondory’s  troop  while 
it  was  trying  to  establish  itself  at  Paris.  Cer- 
tainly there  is  nothing  improbable  in  this  num- 
ber, so  that  the  evidence  indicates  only  that  . 
the  new  troop  began  to  play  either  in  the  fall 
of  1629  or  in  the  early  months  of  1630. 

Finally,  the  use  of  the  word  “ etablir  ” does 
not  show  that  Corneille’s  play  was  the  first 
that  Mondory  represented.  His  troop  may  have 
struggled  for  several  months  before  being  per- 
manently established  by  the  representation  of 
Melite.  Rigal’s  testimony,  therefore,  while 
showing  that  the  play  was  not  represented  be- 
fore 1629,  by  no  means  prevents  the  acceptance 

18  Eudore-Soultf,  Recherches  sur  Moliire,  Paris, 
1863,  pp.  164,  165;  Rigal,  op.  cit.,  69. 


of  1630  as  the  probable  date  of  its  first  rep- 
resentation. 

Positive  evidence  in  favor  of  the  1630  dat- 
ing was  discovered  by  Dannheisser  20  as  early 
as  1890,  but  it  has  been  very  generally  over- 
looked. In  one  of  the  polemical  articles  occa- 
sioned by  the  Cid’s  success,  the  Avertissement 
au  Besangonnois  Mairet,  mention  is  made  of 
“ cette  malheureuse  Silvanire  que  le  coup 
d’essai  de  M.  Corneille  terrassa  dbs  sa  premiere 
representation.”  21  Evidently,  then,  M elite  fol- 
lowed Silvanire.  What  was  the  date  of  the 
latter  play? 

Dannheisser  shows  that,  while  Mairet,  in  the 
Bpitre  to  his  Galanteries  du  due  d’Ossonne,  de- 
liberately changes  his  age  to  prove  his  pre- 
cocity, the  statements  he  makes  with  regard  to 
the  relative  order  of  his  own  plays  and  the 
number  of  years  that  separated  them  from  one 
another  are  probably  correct.  “Je  composay 
ma  Chriseide  a seize  ans.  . . . Silvie,  qui 
la  suivit  nn  an  apres  . . . Je  fis  la  Sil- 
vanire a 21,  Le  Due  d’Ossonne  a 23,  Virginie 
a 24,  Sophonisbe  a 25,  Marc-Anthoine  et  S oil- 
man a 26.”  Therefore,  since  Marsan 22  has 
established  the  date  of  Sylvie  as  1626  or  1627, 
Silvanire  was  written  in  1630  or  1631,  pref- 
erably the  former  year  as  the  privilege  was 
obtained  February  3,  1631. 23 

Moreover,  both  Dannheisser  and  Marsan 24 
call  our  attention  to  the  following  reference  to 
Silvanire  in  the  Au  lecteur  to  the  1630  edi- 
tion of  Sylvie: 25  “ Contente-toy  de  cet  ouvrage 
cy,  en  attendant  que  je  te  donne  une  Tragi- 
Comedie  purement  Pastorale  26  de  ma  derniere 

20  Zur  Chronologie  der  Dramen  Jean  de  Mairet’s, 
Romanische  Forschungen,  V,  37-64,  1890. 

21  Marty-Laveaux,  III,  70. 

22  La  Sylvie  du  sieur  Mairet,  Paris,  1905,  pp.  vii- 
xii. 

23  Had  Silvanire  been  first  produced  in  1631,  Mairet 
would  not  have  taunted  Corneille  with  his  unseemly 
haste  in  printing  the  Cid  so  soon  after  its  first  rep- 
resentation. Cf.,  below,  my  discussion  of  the  date  of 
Clitandre. 

24  La  Pastorale  dramatique,  Paris,  1905,  p.  375. 

25  La  Sylvie  du  sieur  Mairet,  8.  The  achevi  d’im- 
primex  to  this  edition  is  not  given. 

28  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  fact  that  this 
means  Silvanire,  for  Mairet  wrote  no  other  pastoral 
than  this  after  Sylvie. 


et  meilleure  fagon.  Ce  que  je  promets  a ta 
curiosite,  je  le  tiendray  dans  cette  annee  1630.” 
If  Mairet  is  here  referring  to  the  approaching 
first  representations  of  Silvanire , this  is,  of 
course,  excellent  proof  that  it  appeared  first  in 
1630,  but  even  if  he  is  referring  only  to  its 
publication — and  it  seems  strange  that,  if  he 
is  here  promising  its  publication  in  1630,  he 
did  not  secure  the  privilege  to  print  it  till 
February  3,  1631 — he  still  clearly  implies  that 
Silvanire  is  a new  work,  finished,  perhaps,  but 
not  yet  known  to  the  public. 

The  preponderance  of  evidence  points  clearly, 
then,  to  the  fact  that  Silvanire  was  first  repre- 
sented in  1630,  and,  indeed,  this  date  has  been 
generally  accepted  for  it.  But  we  continue  to 
find  1629  set  down  as  the  year. of  Melite’s  first 
appearance.  It  is  difficult  to  change  a date  so 
important  as  one  that  marks  the  opening  of  a 
great  writer’s  career.  Nevertheless,  if  we  accept 
this  date  for  Silvanire,  and  the  evidence  is  most 
strongly  in  favor  of  it,  we  must  acknowledge 
the  logical  implication  that  M elite,  which  fol- 
lowed it,  appeared  no  earlier  than  1630. 

That  its  first  representation  took  place  no 
later  than  the  winter  of  1630  is  shown  by  Cor- 
neille’s statement 27  that  its  “ trois  premieres 
representations  ensemble  n’eurent  point  tant 
d’affluence  que  la  moindre  de  celles  qui  les 
suivirent  dans  le  meme  hiver.”  This  cannot 
mean  the  winter  of  1630-1631,  for  that  would 
place  the  first  performance  of  M elite  too  late 
to  allow  a reasonable  time  for  the  large  num- 
ber of  representations  that  came  between  this 
first  performance  and  February  25,  1631,  date 
of  the  law-suit  to  which  I have  referred  above. 
The  reference  must  be  to  the  winter  of  1629- 
1630.  Therefore,  the  conclusion  that  best  fits 
all  the  facts  in  the  case  is  that  Melite  was  first 
represented  towards  the  month  of  February, 
1630. 

2.  Clitandre.  We  know  that  this  tragi- 
comedy was  written  after  its  author  had  taken 
a trip  to  Paris  to  inquire  about  the  success  of 
Melite,2*  and  that  the  permission  to  print  it 

27  Rpitre  d Monsieur  de  Liancour,  Marty-Laveaux, 
I,  135. 

28  Marty-Laveaux,  I,  373. 


was  obtained  March  8,  1632.  Its  earliest  pos- 
sible date  would  therefore  be  late  in  1630.  It 
is  improbable  that  it  was  first  acted  later  than 
1631,  for  at  this  period,  according  to  Chapelain 
in  a letter  of  March  9,  1640,  a play  was  rarely 
published  less  than  six  months  after  its  first 
representation.  This  was  largely  due  to  the 
fact  that  a play  could  be  acted  by  a troop  other 
than  that  which  first  gave  it  only  after  its 
publication.119  It  was  consequently  to  the  in- 
terest of  the  actors  to  keep  it  out  of  print  as 
long  as  possible.  For  this  reason  Mairet  con- 
sidered Corneille’s  quick  publication  of  the 
Cid  an  injustice  to  the  actors  for  whom  he 
wrote.30  Unless  we  have  proof  to  the  contrary, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Cid , it  seems  safe  to  as- 
sume that  a play’s  first  representation  occurred 
at  least  six  months  before  the  date  of  its  privi- 
lege. I conclude,  therefore,  that  Clitandre 
should  be  dated,  not  1632,  but  1631  or  late  in 
1630. 

3.  La  Veuve.  The  privilege  was  granted 
March  9,  1634.  Expressions  in  the  dedication 
and  in  a poem  published  with  the  play,  “ le 
bon  accueil  qu’  autrefois  cette  Veuve  a regu,” 
“ un  temps  si  long  sans  tc  montrer  au  jour,” 
show,  as  Marty-Lavcaux  points  out,31  that  con- 
siderable time  elapsed  between  the  first  repre- 
sentation of  this  comedy  and  its  publication. 
Consequently  the  Veuve,  represented  after  Cli- 
tandre and  before  the  Oalerie  du  Palais,  must 
have  appeared  in  1631  or  1632. 

4.  La  Galerie  du  Palais.  According  to  the 
Au  lecteur  to  la  Veuve,  printed  March  13, 
1634,  Corneille  had  written  six  plays  by  this 
time.32  Hence  la  Galerie  du  Palais,  la  Sui- 
vanle,  and  la  Place  royale  were  already  fin- 
ished, as  well  as  Mclite,  Clitandre,  and  la 

39  Fibres  Parfaict,  IX,  105. 

39  Lett  re  familidre,  quoted  by  the  freres  Parfaict, 
V,  200.  Cf.  also  Marty- La veaux,  III,  8. 

31  Op.  cit.,  I,  373. 

32  Marty-Laveaux,  I,  378.  Though  this  scholar 
realized  what  inference  was  to  be  drawn  from  this 
evidence,  he  stuek  to  the  traditional  date,  1635,  for 
the  first  representation  of  the  Place  royale  till  he 
learned  of  the  next  piece  of  evidence  I cite.  The 
correct  inference  was  drawn  in  1885  by  U.  Meier, 
op.  cit.,  VII,  131. 


Veuve.  A Latin  poem,  composed  between  Sep- 
tember, 1633,  and  August,  1634,  confirms  this 
evidence  by  references  to  the  Galerie  and  the 
Place  royale.33  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that 
the  first  of  the  three  was  written  and  acted  as 
early  as  1632.  To  give  it  an  earlier  date 
would  crowd  too  many  of  Corneille’s  plays  into 
the  years  1630-1631  and  put  the  unusually 
long  period  of  six  years  or  more  between  the 
first  acting  and  the  printing  of  the  Galerie. 
To  date  it  1633,  on  the  other  hand,  would  put 
too  many  plays  into  this  year.  Therefore,  1632 
is  the  probable  date  of  the  play. 

5.  Lm  Suivante.  The  fact  that  this  comedy 
was  printed  a few  months  later  than  the  Place 
royale  does  not  mean  that  its  first  representa- 
tion followed  that  of  the  other  play,  as  can  be 
seen  by  comparing  the  case  of  Clitandre,  pub- 
lished before  M elite,  but  represented  after  it. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  have  Corneille’s  state- 
ment that  the  Suivante  preceded  the  Place  roy- 
ale and  there  is  a reference  to  the  former  play 
in  the  latter.34  The  Suivante  should  therefore 
be  dated  between  the  Galerie  du  Palais  and  the 
Place  royale,  in  the  first  half  of  1633  or,  per- 
haps, late  in  1632. 

6.  La  Place  royale.  Claveret’s  Place  royale 
was  acted  before  the  king  at  Forges  between 
June  15  and  July  3,  1633. 35  Its  author 
charged  Corneille  with  undertaking  his  play  of 
the  same  name  “ des  que  vous  sutes  que  j’y 
travaillois.”  Probably  both  plays  were  begun 
before  the  royal  visit  and  Corneille’s  was 
brought  out  in  the  latter  half  of  1633.  We 
have  seen  that  it  cannot  possibly  have  appeared 
later  than  March  13,  1634. 

7.  Medee.  By  a reference  to  one  of  Balzac’s 
letters  30  Marty-La veaux  37  shows  that  Medee 

33  Bouquet,  Louis  XIII  et  sa  cour  aux  caux  de 
Forges,  in  Revue  des  Societfs  savantes  des  ddparte- 
ments,  2e  st*rie,  I,  011-042  (1859);  Marty-Laveaux, 
X,  08. 

31  Marty-Laveaux,  II,  200. 

35  Let  Ire  du  Sieur  Claveret  au  Sicur  Corneille,  10; 
Bouquet,  loc.  cit.;  Marty-Laveaux,  X,  64;  U.  Meier, 
op.  cit.,  VII,  131,  132.  The  latter  was,  1 believe, 
the  first  to  date  Corneille’s  play  by  its  association 
with  Claveret’s. 

33  To  Boisrobert,  April  3,  1635. 

37 II,  330,  331. 


must  have  been  represented  before  April  3, 
1635.  It  could  not  have  been  written  long 
before,  as  it  is  referred  to  as  “ presque  achevee  ” 
in  the  Parnasse  of  La  Pineliere,38  a book 
printed  in  1635,  written  perhaps  as  early  as 
the  latter  part  of  1634.  The  date  assigned  to 
Medee  should  be,  then,  the  end  of  1634  or  the 
beginning  of  1635  and  not  simply  the  latter 
year,  as  we  ordinarily  find  it. 

8.  L’lllusion  comique.  As  Mareschal  tells 
us  in  the  preface  to  his  Railleur  that  this  play 
preceded  Corneille’s  Illusion , Marty-Laveaux  39 
dates  the  latter  comedy  1636,  having  learned 
from  the  freres  Parfaict 40  that  the  Railleur 
was  first  given  that  year.  But  the  freres  Par- 
faict admit  that  they  date  the  Railleur  1636 
because  it  preceded  the  Illusion.  As  a matter 
of  fact  we  do  not  know  the  date  of  the  Rail- 
leur,*1 so  that,  while  we  wait  for  its  discovery, 

38  Freres  Parfaict,  V,  166,  and  Marty-Laveaux,  loc. 
cit. 

39 II,  424. 

40  y,  177. 

41  If  its  author  is  correct  in  stating  that  it  oilers 
the  first  miles  gloriosus  of  his  generation,  it  must 


we  must  date  the  Illusion  between  Medee  and 
the  Cid,  in  1635  or  1636. 

I conclude  from  the  foregoing  that  the  most 
probable  dates  for  the  first  representations  of 
Corneille’s  early  plays  are: 

1.  M elite,  1630,  towards  the  month  of  Feb- 
ruary. 

2.  Clitandrc,  1631,  possibly  late  in  1630. 

3.  La  Veuve,  1631  or  1632. 

4.  La  Galerie  du  Palais,  1632. 

5.  La  Suivante,  1633,  possibly  late  in  1632. 

6.  La  Place  royale,  1633,  possibly  1634  be- 
fore March  13. 

7.  Medee,  end  of  1634,  or  1635  before 
April  3. 

8.  L’lllusion  comique,  1635  or  1636. 

H.  Carrington  Lancaster. 

Amherst  College. 

have  been  represented  at  least  as  early  as  1633, 
date  of  the  publication  of  Rayssiguier’s  Bourgeoise, 
which  contains  among  its  characters  “ Le  Vaillant, 
Fanfaron.” 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/datesofcorneilleOOIanc 


■ • 


3 0112  062162117 


